And when they're done badly, or even just not well, I can totally see why.

In a previous position, the performance review often went a little something like this:

Manager: "Okay, let's look at your year's objectives"

Me: "Sure, but most of these priorities have changed during the year, so they don't really apply anymore"

Manager: "Yes, that's true, but you've done some good work in other areas. Your rating will probably be middle of the road"

Don't get me wrong, this was not the full extent of the meeting, and was not terrible. It's a far cry from some of the horror stories I've heard. But it also always felt like a 'tick the box' exercise, and never really added much value.

On the other hand, the review with my manager today was a genuine conversation on my progress this year. There was some advice on how to improve on the things that haven't gone so well. There were some reminders that despite the difficult parts, I've made good progress. There were discussions on where objectives have changed, and why we might approach that process differently next time around. There was no discussion of the final rating, but there was assurance that the good progress would be brought up in the calibration of ratings.

Sure, it wasn't perfect (nothing is), but I definitely felt that it was definitely a valuable conversation.

And I think I know part of the reason why: This conversation is far from the only conversation we've had this year on this topic. We meet weekly, and performance review, development, objectives etc. are a key part of that conversation.

This has shown me a couple of things, which I will be applying as we work on our performance review process:

When both parties understand why the review is happening, it can work wellSince both my manager and I are fans of the performance review process, we work together to ensure it's a valuable conversation. But for those who don't understand the reasons behind it, performance review so often turns into a tick-the-box exercise, and leaves everyone unsatisfied. Education and demonstration of benefits is key.

Quality is important, but so is quantityThe more conversations we have about my performance, the less pressure there is on the final review. In a great employee relationship, the final review should just be a summary of conversations already had. If it gets to the point that an annual review is the only performance conversation, it's unlikely to be an effective conversation. Managers need to make time for their people.

Overcoming the negative perceptions is half the battleThere are so many dissenters in the conversation about performance reviews. Until we can reduce the negative noise, and start seeing the good parts, it's always going to be a hard sell.We need to start sharing stories on how this can really work.

And now it's your turn: Are you pro- or anti-performance reviews? What has made them effective for you? When have you wished you hadn't even bothered? What improvements to a performance review process have you found effective?